Nov 30 2012

Another Journalism Fail on the Denver Bug-UFO

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Another Journalism Fail on the Denver Bug-UFO”.


6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Another Journalism Fail on the Denver Bug-UFO”

  1. Karl Withakayon 30 Nov 2012 at 11:31 am

    OK, I finally got around to watching the videos. How is anyone impressed by this? The video footage presented to the viewers by the news program is obviously intentionally manipulated via jump cuts, quick zooms, and pans to make it seem more impressive and harder to scrutinize. In the rare sections of the video that eschew these manipulations long enough, it is painfully obvious these are mostly bugs and the occasional bird. The motion is extremely insect like motion.

    Without the raw, unmanipulated footage, there’s really no point in even paying this any attention, except to rebut those who are paying it attention.

    Are we really supposed to believe there are UFOs flying around Denver that are invisible to the naked eye and make no perceived sound to anyone in the area, but are picked up by standard video equipment?

    There is some limited distance information that can be inferred from a single camera shot without a white sheet. If the objects were at a great distance, I would expect them to be in better focus. That blurring does not appear to be motion blur; it is the result of out of focus objects, which would not be expected if the objects were at or beyond focal infinity.

    Though I comment and blog under a pseudonym, I also have to apply great skepticism and even cynicism to a video submitted by an anonymous videographer. Though there can be legitimate reasons why they might want to remain anonymous, one must at least consider the possibility that they have an established reputation that would seriously impact their credibility. (Known hoaxer?) I only watched the videos once, and didn’t listen to the credulous dialog as closely as I watched the video, but I don’t recall any mention by the “investigative journalist” of having researched the videographer and determined they were reputable and trustworthy. Presumably she does know the videographer’s identity and is keeping it secret at their request; it would be absurd to such show a video from a completely unknown source.

  2. tmac57on 30 Nov 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Given the reports by visitors to the site that it is loaded with flying insects,then Hemmat needs to explain why it is that they are NOT visible in the footage.If she concedes that some of them might be insects,then she needs to explain why it is not possible that all of them are insects (or birds).
    The Denver skeptics need to be all over this one,if they are not already.This is a genuine opportunity to get some public notice of what skepticism is all about.

  3. Karl Withakayon 30 Nov 2012 at 3:32 pm

    It they really want strong, compelling evidence that these are not bugs, in addition to the two camera setup and white sheet, add a third camera focused at a close distance with a narrow aperture setting for greatest possible depth of field. (in broad daylight, a high F stop number should not be a problem) If they are objects close to the lens, they should be more in focus this way.

  4. Jared Olsenon 01 Dec 2012 at 3:27 am

    They’re frickin’ bugs. We know it, and so does Hemmat. She won’t do the white-sheet test because bam, there goes the story down the toilet.

  5. dogugotwon 01 Dec 2012 at 8:11 am

    I didn’t pay too much attention to this video first time around other than to think ‘meh, probably something like an rc copter or other faked up video thing’. In your current post, I noticed the key give away that whatever it was, it was likely to be crap…’Fox 31 WKDVR’. Ohhhh, Foooxxx! Like they ever do actual news. Come on, you expect jounalism from for profit media/entertainment companies? What fantasy world do you live in? I’ve pretty much given up on anything but public radio/television and even there it pays to double check some stuff. At least they routinely ‘fess up to mistakes.

  6. Dianeon 07 Dec 2012 at 7:43 am

    Do they do Ignobels for journalism? This is hilariously stupid.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.